This week, I played Jackbox Party Packs 2 and 7. The Jackbox party pack series is developed by Jackbox Games for PC and most consoles. Jackbox games are mostly intended for adults but do come with family-friendly filters to exclude adult content. The format of these games is quite unique – the game has a main screen for all players to see, but each player also logs on with their phones and keeps their screen hidden from other players. I played once with a group of very close friends, then again with a group I wasn’t as familiar with, which illuminated the ways these games succeed and fail at deepening relationships. Examining the game through Schacter & Festinger’s framework of friendship formation, I argue that Jackbox games try to use judging as a way to deepen relationships but fall short by failing to account for the risk of vulnerability.
Schacter & Festinger list four criteria for friendship formation, the first of which is proximity ie. repeat interactions. Usually, online games have to work especially hard to facilitate proximity, as importing offline friend groups into online games is practically impossible. Jackbox games, however, are specifically designed to be played in the same room as other players, which means they skirt this problem entirely. Another key piece of proximity is preventing overcrowding, which Jackbox games accomplishes by limiting the maximum number of players in a game. Finally, Jackbox games have a very low barrier to entry, as only one player needs to have the party pack for a group to play. This means many players can play over and over again completely for free. These design choices mean Jackbox games facilitate proximate interactions which enables them to deepen friendships.
Jackbox games also try to facilitate demonstrations of similarity between players. The standard format of jackbox games is (1) all players have a limited time to submit their responses to a prompt, then (2) players’ answers are judged then revealed. A numerical timer is displayed on the main screen, which puts pressure on players to submit responses quickly. Players are therefore likely to go with their first thought, so responses can be quite similar. Some of the biggest laughs during my plays were at these moments of demonstrated similarity, and this brings players closer together.
The third criterion is reciprocity, which Jackbox games facilitate in two ways. First, many games specifically ask players to respond to one another. In Champ’d Up, players illustrate characters for a given prompt, then are sent each others’ characters and asked to respond with their own characters. Because the responses are often quite humorous, this creates the offer-and-positive-response feeling needed for deepening friendships. Some games also include cooperation as a core mechanic. In Talking Points, players give presentations with slides they did not create. These slides are actually created by an assistant player who curates images and text from a randomly-generated pool. At the end of the presentation, points are distributed to both the speaker and the assistant, so players have to work together to perform well. This creates a teamwork experience that successfully facilitates reciprocity between players.
The final criterion is the one that Jackbox games tend to fail at, disclosure. Disclosure involves sharing personal information without rejection. Jackbox games try to design for this – because your goal in most games is to receive votes from other players, your aim is to guess information about other players e.g. what their sense of humor is. After you submit your answer, the truth is revealed, for example by displaying who voted where. This tries to create the dynamic of revealing information (by submitting your response to a prompt) and receiving affirmation (by receiving votes). However, Jackbox games aren’t a sufficiently safe environment to facilitate proper disclosure. Quiplash is particularly bad at this – players feel intense rejection when they don’t get any votes, especially since losses in games are felt 2x harder than gains. Because there are so many rounds of voting, it’s common for players to be swept by their competition. Not only does Quiplash have lots of opportunities for rejection, it celebrates players who dominate with a special animation. In doing so, it intensifies the rejection the loser feels, which undermines the potential for building friendships.
In conclusion, Jackbox games, and especially Quiplash, have almost all pieces to deepen relationships between players, but fail to adequately account for rejection. I think some relatively minor tweaks could address this issue. In fact, the Jackbox game Talking Points does a great job minimizing rejection. Over the course of one player’s presentation, points are awarded by having judging players mash an upvote button. This makes losing feel less like rejection, because all players receive lots of affirmation from every other player. I think Quiplash could minimize rejection similarly by finding ways to affirm losing players. For example, perhaps players could vote on a sliding scale so that losing players are still likely to get some points each round.
